Canada gets own "3 Strikes" program.

Rehabilitation is, by and large, a myth. As for your friend...he CAN be treated with meds, but you can't KEEP him in there if he wants out. And, he
may or may not kill someone. If he does, well then... I guess he'd have to pay the piper, just like any of us.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, DE and intrepid, I grew up near Wingham and had most of my life to live with the questions surrounding Steven
Truscott.

He was very nearly hung in Goderich, a town just south of me now, after being convicted of killing a little girl when he wasn't much more than a
child himself.

There are 'circumstances' which suggest the killer may have been a serviceman from nearby Clinton, which had an airforce base at that time. That man
was never brought to justice, even though he was a suspect for a number of assaults at the time.

Steven Truscott spent most of his life behind bars...at great cost to the taxpayers (me included). I'm glad he wasn't hung, though...because he was
innocent of the crime.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Duzey, why is the onus on the bad guy a bad thing? I mean, look at the Jonathan killer. He's elligible for parole in seven years.

From what I understand, the Jonathan killer wouldn't have been affected by this kind of law. You would need to be convicted three times before it
kicks in. Once the bill has been tabled and I have read it, I will be in a better position to decide if I like it or not.

In my (never humble) opinion, innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of our legal system. If the Crown thinks someone is a dangerous
offender, they should be able to prove it. If making someone prove a negative isn't good enough for ATS, it certainly shouldn't be good enough for
our court system.

And while the Young Offenders Act is an entirely different topic and it does need review, the only point I will make about it is that if it weren't
for the YOA, Duzey would be unemployable. I had my record expunged when I turned 18. Everyone can make a mistake or two in their life.

I once had the 'pleasure' of working with a gentleman that had been convicted of murder and served his time. He killed the man who raped his
daughter. In my mind, that's kind of justifiable and I would hate to see that count against him in a '3 strikes' situation.

We can kill all the pedophiles, however. I have no problem with that.

All I'm saying is that if such a thing were to come into effect, I would prefer if it were used on a case-by-case basis, with the Crown proving their
case before a judge.

S'the exception, not the rule, Duzey. To me, that's perfectly fine. Hell, it wouldn't have happened if we hung rapists instead of giving them a
slap on the wrist.

As I said, this isn't the case. The guy who murdered his girlfriend, or shot another banger, or did a driveby...well, it should be up to him to
figure out why he should be let free, since we don't have a hanging judge to our name. I wonder if they'll extend 'dangerous offender' status to
members of criminal organizations. Couldn't hurt, right? I mean we have a revolving door system here, where bangers go in for six months for a drug
or weapons charge, come out, get in a gunfight, serve another six months, get out...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.